2016 (12) TMI 966 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 112 (a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - import of Natural Lime Stone Powder - on testing goods found to be Calcium Carbonate Powder - Held that - It is observed from the statement dated 24.11.2004 of the appellant that nowhere is stated that he was aware the goods being imported by the importer were not Natural Lime Stone Powder. The correct nature of the imported goods could be known only after chemical test was undertaken by the department. Even the examining officers could not detect the goods imported were other than Natural Lime Stone Powder. In the absence of any evidence, that appellant had the knowledge of imported goods being Calcium Carbonate Powder and not Natural Lime Stone Powder declared in the bill of entry, penalty imposed on the appellant is not justified and is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on the nature of imported goods declared in the bill of entry.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original imposing a penalty of &8377; 50,000 on the appellant, a Customs House Agent, for the nature of imported goods declared in the bill of entry. The appellant argued that they relied on information provided by the importer, who later settled dues with the Settlement Commission. The appellant claimed they had no knowledge that the goods were not as declared. The Revenue contended that the appellant did not obtain supporting documents and filed based on verbal information. However, it was noted that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was aware that the goods were different from what was declared.

The key issue was whether the appellant was liable for the penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The statement of the appellant did not indicate awareness that the goods were not as declared. It was highlighted that the correct nature of the goods could only be determined through a chemical test by the department, as even examining officers could not detect the discrepancy. Due to the lack of evidence proving the appellant's knowledge of the misdeclaration, the penalty imposed was deemed unjustified and set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that without concrete evidence of the appellant's awareness regarding the misdeclaration of the goods, the penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be upheld. The decision underscored the importance of substantiated proof when imposing penalties related to the nature of imported goods declared in bill entries.